of the Earth and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands They shall perish but thou remainest they shall wax old as does a Garment And as a Vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy Years fail not Let us add the next words at ver 13. But to which of the Angels said he at any time Sit at my Right-hand until I make thine enemies the Foot-stool He saith these words here cited to v. 13. are intended of the Son our Lord Christ and that by ascribing to him the Creation of the Heavens and Earth they assure us both of the Pre-eternity and the Divinity of the said our Lord Christ We have seen before that the Writers of the New Testament do accommodate divers Passages and Expressions of the Old Testament to our Saviour tho originally and in their primary Intention they were meant of other Persons because such Passages and Expressions had another and a second Completion in the Person of the Lord Christ Thus what was said of Solomon Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever is applied to our Saviour because he also has an everlasting Throne and what was said of Israel Out of Egypt I have called my Son is too accommodated to Christ because he likewise was called out of Egypt after the Death of Herod In like sort in this Context to the Hebrews what had been said by the Psalmist of God and of the old or first Creation Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands c. is accommodated to the Lord Christ and to the new Creation which he hath made even the new Heavens and the new Earth in which as St. Peter says of them dwelleth Righteousness The Gospel-state and Times or the Church in opposition to the Synagogue and Jewish Oeconomy is described very often in Scripture under the Names of the New Heavens and New Earth Isa 65.17 Behold I create new Heavens and a new Earth and the former shall be remembred no more Isa 66.22 As the new Heavens and the new Earth which I will make shall remain before me so shall your Seed and your Name remain St. Peter after he had described the fearful Dissolution of the Jewish Oeconomy and State in terms much like those used by our Saviour on the same occasion and Subject at Mat. 24. adds 2 Pet. 3.13 Nevertheless according to his Promise we look for new Heavens and a new Earth wherein dwelleth Righteousness That is a new Oeconomy and State in which not so much a Ceremonial as a Moral and true Righteousness shall be taught and practised Rev. 21.1 I saw a new Heaven and a new Earth for the first Heaven and the first Earth were passed away i. e. He saw the Church or Christian Oeconomy begin the Jewish or old Oeconomy or Law was abolished All the Trinitarian Interpreters do thus understand these Texts namely that by the New Heavens and New Earth is meant the Gospel-state of things in opposition to the Jewish which is antiquated and done away This is the Earth and these the Heavens of which the Lord Christ is the Maker under God partly by Himself partly by his Apostles and other true Ministers of the Gospel and these the Author to the Hebrews meaneth when he says here of our Lord Christ Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands they shall be changed from their state of Probation and Trial to a state of Perfection and Enjoyment but thou remainest for ever the same The most Learned Grotius whose Interpretation this is rightly observes that the Hebrews to whom this Epistle was written did commonly speak of the Times of the Messias or Christ in these very terms here used namely that He should make another World New Heavens and Earth meaning thereby a Total change of the face of things in the Church and Religion And those Forms of speaking they borrowed from the Prophet Isaiah whose words I have before quoted Therefore in writing to them it was no surprize to them that this Epistle should accommodate the words of the Prophetical Psalmist used by him concerning God and the first Creation to the Messias and the New Creation because in him they had Another and Second Completion Others of our Party give other Accounts of this Text this for one that the words Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth c. are not at all in any sense intended of our Saviour but are a devout Apostrophe Conversion or Address to God that is to the Father so as to make this sense And truly thou Lord who hast thus anointed and exalted thy Son art the God who hast laid the Foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the Work of thy Hands But to which of his Angels hath this Glorious and Vnchangeable Creator at any time said as He doth by the Inspired and Prophetical Psalmist to the Son our Lord Christ Sit on my right Hand till I make thy Enemies thy Foot-stool Here we ought to note that the words Sit at my right Hand till I make thy Enemies thy Footstool are originally and primarily intended of David as is owned by the Trinitarian Interpreters but they are applied to Christ in this Context to the Hebrews because they are also a Prophecy of him and of what God would do for him In a word their meaning with respect to the Lord Christ is this God hath in his Decree said concerning the Messias or Christ who shall in due time be manifested Sit on my right hand till I make thy Enemies thy Footstool This is the Sense of the words as they stand in the Psalm See the Learned Dr. Patrick's Paraphrase and Notes on Psal 110.1 I do not wonder Sir that our Opposer took no notice of these two Interpretations of these words Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth c. they were too Rational and Probable to be set in the same Light and View with the Wild Construction that He and his Party make of this Context For they make this Author to the Hebrews to say that the Lord Christ is the Creator of the Visible Earth and Heavens and yet that 't is Another Person that must subdue to him the Enemies of his Kingdom and make them his Foot-stool I had almost forgot Sir to tell you that as Grotius is the Author of the first Interpretation which I have given of this Context so 't is Thomas Aquinas sirnamed the Angelical Doctor thus has observed and suggested the other He alledgeth next thô not out of the Old Testament according to his proposed Method Heb. 1.1 2. God who at sundry times spake to the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last times spoken to us by his Son by whom also He made the Worlds Our Author is not pleased
Church Acts 5.31 Ephes 1.22 There are three sorts of Worship the first is Civil Honour or Worship which is given to Others on account of Civil Dignity or Natural Endowments or the worthiness of the Rational Nature common to us all This kind of Worship is due more especially from Inferiors to Superiors but is not to be neglected by Superiors to Inferiors Next there is Religious Worship which we give to others on account of their Holiness or of their Relation to God And 't is more or less as their Sanctity or their Relation to God is greater or less this sort of Worship is due to holy Men and Women to the Ministers of God and holy Things more yet to Prophets above them to glorified Spirits and Angels We see in the Bible that Religious Worship was express'd by Terms of great deference and respect such as My Father and My Lord and for outward Acts sometimes by Kneeling sometimes by Prostration sometimes other ways as on the other hand they were sometimes accepted sometimes refused Lastly There is Divine Worship which belongs only to God It consists in a Resignation of our Understandings to what God shall say or reveal a Resignation of our Wills and Desires to what he does or decrees 't is a giving up our Affections to love him more than all things besides It consists moreover in such external Acts and Significations of Reverence and of Love towards him as we reserve only for him and never give to any other I say now the Texts cited and urged by our Opposer do not prove that the Lord Christ ought to be worshipp'd with more than a Civil and Religious Worship there are no Acts of Worship ever required to be paid to him but such as may be paid to a Civil Power to a Person in high Dignity and Office or to Prophets and holy Men or to such as are actually possest of the Heavenly Beatitudes What if it is said the Apostles worshipped that is kneeled to him Mat. 28.17 and that to him every Knee both in Heaven and Earth shall bow Phil. 2.11 Let our Opposers show that the Apostles worshipped him not as their Master but as their God or that every Knee is to bow to him not as to a Superiour Lord but as to a Person who is true and most High God till they prove this they prove nothing to the present purpose We are well assured that we can prove the contrary because we can prove the Lord Christ was a Man a Person who for his holy Life and Death was exaited by God which is inconsistent with his being God or a Person of God and whatsoever Name he hath that Name was gives to him by God and whatsoever Worship is paid to him is paid to him for the Sake by the Command and to the Glory that I may use St. Paul's words of God the Father of all Phil. 2.11 CHAP. XI Of the Satisfaction AFter having proved as he thinks the Divinity of our Saviour our Author undertakes to prove too the vulgar Doctrine of the Satisfaction He saith P. 683 684. The Infinite Justice of God necessarily requires that every Sinner nay that every Transgression be punish'd Therefore saith he farther that Mankind is pardoned is an Effect of the Justice of God to which Justice a full Satisfaction being paid by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ in our stead God could not evidence his Justice otherways than by granting Pardon and Salvation to us If God could pardon us freely without a Satisfaction to his Justice why are not the fallen Angels pardoned At P. 706. he has contrived a Tale or Romance concerning a certain King who taking Pity of his Rebels declared that they should be pardoned if any Person would be so kind to them as to suffer in their stead He tells us the King 's only Son offered to suffer for them and his Offer being accepted by his Father who dearly loved him the Son died and the Rebels were saved And this he saith is exactly our case with God He pretends also to answer to some Objections made by the Socinians against the pretended Satisfaction to God's Justice by the Lord Christ for our Sins They object that the Doctrine of a full Satisfaction to God's Justice on our behalf destroys the free Grace of God so much magnified in holy Scripture in the gratuitous Pardon of our Sins for if God received an Equivalent on our behalf he hath not pardoned us but only discharged or acquitted us because our Debt to his Justice has been paid for us by another To this he answers Yes the Grace and Pardon of God to us was most free because tho our Debt to God's Justice has been paid yet not by us but by a Person whom God himself found out for us Besides the Satisfaction made for us by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ being a refusable Payment because God might have required the Satisfaction of our selves or from us therefore he is rightly said to have pardoned us and to have shown most free Grace and Favour to us even tho an Equivalent and Satisfaction was made to his Justice on our behalf Again They object that God could not in Justice substitute a most worthy and righteous Person to undergo Punishment properly so called in the place and stead of unrighteous and worthless Persons that were to pervert the Nature and whole Design of that sort of Justice which is exercised about Rewards and Punishments He answers God might punish the Lord Christ for us First Because under the Law the innocent Beast was substituted to Death and Punishment by being made a Sacrifice for the Sin and instead of the offending Owner and Master then because the Lord Christ freely offered himself to suffer in our room and stead Farther they object that the three days Death of the Lord Christ cannot be equivalent and therefore not a Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the eternal Death and Damnation of one Sinner much less of all Mankind For supposing that the Value of Sufferings or Punishment is increased even to Infinity by the infinite Dignity of the Person that suffers and supposing again that the Lord Christ being God as well as Man was indeed a Person of Infinite Dignity yet seeing his Divinity could suffer nothing at all but only his Humanity therefore his Sufferings were but human and finite and consequently no way commensurate to the infinite Punishment due to one Sinner much less to that of all Sinners He replies First that to the account of the Sufferings or Punishment of the Lord Christ we must reckon all the Sufferings of his Life and especially his Agony in the Garden which our Author saith was so great that it was equivalent to that eternal Punishment prepared by God for all impenitent Sinners p. 749. But lest the Agony in the Garden and on the Cross should seem to any to have been too much short in time to be laid in the Ballance against
but he cannot inflict their Punishment on the Innocent and Righteous for 't is of the very Essence of Justice nay is the first thing belonging to Justice not to misplace Punishment Not to misplace Punishment and not to exceed the desert of the Offence are the two things that constitute the Nature of Punitive Justice The last Objection of which our Author thinks fit to take notice is this That the Three-days Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ could not be equivalent to the Eternal Damnation of so much as one Man much less of all Mankind He answers three ways 1. Our Saviour's Agony in the Garden was without doubt such a weight of Sorrow and Pain as was equivalent even to the eternal Damnation of all Men else we must say He was far less valiant in suffering than many Martyrs have been nay was a very Dastard and Coward Our Author pursues this Calumny upon his Saviour in several Pages see Reader from p. 739 to p. 749. He makes Calanus the Indian not a Christian neither but an Heathen a very Herot in comparison of that poor dispirited pretender Jesus of Nazareth He hath this Passage at p. 739. Nothing seems more mean among the various Accounts of Sufferers for Truth than the Carriage of our Saviour He saith farther That our Saviour prayed most earnestly to be delivered from Death and that he sweat Drops like Drops of Blood but the Martyrs even offer'd themselves to the most cruel Deaths and sang in the midst of Torments It is true that the great Passion of our Saviour in the Garden has made many to think not without cause that it proceeded from some higher Reason than the apprehension of the Death of the Cross which He was shortly to undergo It may be very probably supposed that He conflicted then with great Temprations that the Devil was very busy to fill his Mind with horrid Idea's and Representations and that this was the Cause of his Agony and that an Angel was sent to strengthen him The Martyrs on the contrary had influences and Assistances from the Divine Spirit and the Tempter was with-held from venting his Malice on them But to suppose with our present Author that our Saviour underwent in the Garden the very Torments of Hell nay such Torments as are infinitely greater than Hell-Torments because they were equivalent to the eternal Torments of all the Damned this is said without any ground nay contrary to all good Reason We must suppose on our Author's Hypothesis First That Christ underwent in the space of an hour such an acute Pain as answers fully to the whole Pain of a Damned Person in all Eternity Secondly That this Pain was so multiplied as to be equal to all the Tortures of all the Damned in whole Eternity And yet Thirdly he was only exceeding sorrowful and had a very great Sweat Surely such a Pain would have made him to cry out much more earnestly than on the Cross and how could an Angel strengthen him under such a Pain of which no Angel in Heaven could himself have bore the thousandth part But I would know too why an Angel from Heaven should be sent to strengthen him as is expresly said at Luke 22.43 Why not rather the Divine Person which our Opposers say was in him and with which he was personally united and personally one It had been far more natural that his own Divinity should have strengthned his Humanity than that the Angel shall be sent to support that Man who was they say God-Man I know not what Relishes other Mens Understandings may have but it will never go down with me that God-Man could want to be strengthned by an Angel and I look upon this to be an unanswerable Argument that our Lord Christ was only a Prophet and not God or any such super-eminent Spirit as the Arians believe him to be But that our Saviour's Sufferings may not want Weight to be laid in the Ballance against all the Sufferings of all the Damned our Author saith 2. As the Guilt and Demerit of Sin is made Infinite by being committed against the Infinite Majesty of God so the Merit of Christ's Sufferings on our behalf becomes Infinite too by being offered to an Infinite God I confess when I read this and his Story of the old King and his Son I gave our Author over for there never was any Man so silly but this Author as to conceit that a thing is made better or greater by the Greatness or Excellence of the Person to whom 't is oftered tho it be true that an Offence may be the greater for some Qualifications of the Person against whom it is done If what he says were true that the Infiniteness of God makes that Suffering which is presented to him to be also Infinite what needed our Saviour to have undergone so much as our Author conceits the Pain of the Cross nay the least Pain in his Finger had been sufficient without the horrible Agony in the Garden which he supposes to have been equal to all the Pains of all the Damned and that for ever And if it be true that Christ's Sufferings are made Infinite by his Infinity to whom they are offered then so also would the Sufferings of any other Man This strange reasoning of our Author makes the Punishment of Christ to be wholly needless the Sinners themselves might have sully satisfied God's Justice and that too by the slightest Sufferings if suffering receives its nature and degree from the Infinity of that Majesty to whom 't is tendred He saith thirdly He that suffered for us was God and Man in one Person and tho 't is true the true God could not die or suffer yet He who was true God did both suffer and die The Sufferings of such a Person must needs be esteemed of Infinite Value tho they were not Infinite in their Intension or in their Duration In think this to be almost as weak as the former Answer For seeing they dare not pretend that God could suffer any thing but only the Humanity which They say was united to him such Sufferings were but Human Sufferings the Sufferings of a Man not of God and therefore in no sense Infinite Their Conceit that the Humanity of Christs is united to the Divine Person of the Son helps them not in this case for God dwells in all the Faithful nay is united to them and one with them they are so joined that I may use the Apostle's words to the Lord as to be one Spirit with him 1 Cor. 6.17 John 17.21 but neither their Righteousness nor their Sufferings have any more value on that account but are rated only according to their intrinsick proper and real Worth CHAP. XII On the Texts alledged for the Satisfaction with a Conclusion of the whole THE last thing we are to consider is the Collection of Texts that our Author has here made he urges First That He Christ was wounded for our Transgressions was bruised
sort of People called Schismaticks and Hereticks who having free and discerning Minds stout and brave Souls finding themselves in some Particulars either cheated or wronged by the strongest side they maintain tho a dangerous and bazardous yet a generous and perpetual War for the Natural Liberties of Mankind in Matters of Conscience and Religion They assert by all possible and honest means the Kingdom of God that is they admit of no Lords over Conscience but only God nor any Law of Faith of Worship or Manners but only God's Word no Canons or Articles no humanly devised Creeds or Catechisms nothing but God's Word the naked Gospel without any Interpretations or Interpreters but only Reason and Good Sense These have the luck sometimes to baffle Mother-Church and to bear up against all her Indignation But this Sir shall serve in Answer to your Dedication and Preface only let me advise you as you would come off with more Credit and do more Good in the Parish of Great St. Hellens than you did at Great Yarmouth that you carry it with more Modesty and Respect to all the Inhabitants and to forbear such smutty Lampoons as you made upon that Town What follows is an Answer to your Book and I address it to Friend T. F. An Accurate EXAMINATION of the principal Texts usually alledged for the Divinity of our Saviour and for the Satisfaction by him made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men Occasioned by a Book of Mr. Luke Milbourn called Mysteries in Religion vindicated To T. F. CHAP. I. Containing an accurate Examination of 1 Tim. 3.16 SIR YOUR particular Friend Mr. Milb has begun his Attack on Socinianism with a Text of St. Paul in the Explication and Vindication of which he wastes no fewer than 82 Pages The Text is this Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory 1 Tim. 3.16 He saith hereupon that indeed some Translators read here Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH which Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is the Law was given by Angels but the Gospel by the Ministry of Men even by Jesus Christ and his Apostles called Flesh here in opposition to Angels who are Spirit and because Flesh is the usual Scripture-Term for Man but all the Greek Copies he saith agree in reading this Text as we read it in our English Bibles as also does the famous Manuscript in the King of England's Library which is about 1300 Years old And if saith he the Providence of God as the Socinians contend is concerned to preserve his own holy Word from Corruptions and Falsifications 't is reasonable to think such Providence has been exercised rather about the Original Greek than about Translations But neither saith he do all the old Translations read here as the Socinians do for the Arabick reads as we do GOD was manifested in the Flesh Further more Macedonius to whom the Socinians impute the Corruption of this Text was too late in time for he lived in the Year 512. to attempt an Innovation in Scripture And besides he could have no design in so doing because he had no peculiar Opinions about our Saviour Finally the word God in the first Clause of this Verse makes that Clause to accord with all that follow it for all of them together will make this most proper Sense The Eternal Son of God God equal with his Father and Creator of the World took upon him and was manifested in our weak and passible Nature being incarnate in the Man Christ Jesus He was justified to be God notwithstanding his mean outward Appearance by divers glorious Actions and Miracles done on that behalf by the Holy Spirit He was seen i. e. known by Angels to be the Eternal Son of God and God thô covered with the Veil of Flesh He was preached as such by the Apostles to the Gentiles was believed on generally in the World where-ever they came and after his Resurrection He was received up into the Glories of Heaven But if saith our Author we read here as the Socinians do Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is by Men what Sense shall we make of the other Clauses Will it be Sense to say The Mystery of Godliness the Gospel was seen by Angels Or will it be true that it was received up into the Glory of Heaven The Socinians indeed here answer That instead of these words received up into Glory it should have been said by our Translators was gloriously extolled was magnified and lifted up but this saith our Author is false for on the contrary the Gospel was despised and derided both by Jews and Gentiles This is the Sum and Force of what he has transcribed out of Authors in behalf of his Opinion from the words of this Text. He might if he had pleased have given us too the full and solid Answer made by the Socinians to these Pretences of his Party for I see he has quoted the Books in which those Answers are to be found but that was not the way he thought to mend his Fortunes in the World which is what he aims at and the cause of his writing his Book I will briefly evince these two things 1. This Text of St. Paul has been falsified by those who affirm the Ante-mundan Existence and Divinity of our Saviour 2. This Corruption has been so unskilfully performed that the Attempt serves only to betray their Unfaithfulness and Partiality but does not a whit avail their Cause 1. This Text has been most certainly falsified by substitution of the word God instead of Which WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh The first time I meet with this Text read with the word God among the Antients is in the Acts of the first Council of Nice a Council of next Authority to the Scriptures themselves in the Opinion of our Opposers In this Council a Person repeated the words of St. Paul as they are now read by Trinitarians God was manifested in Flesh the Person who made this Mistake probably from some Marginal Note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word Which in the Text was answered by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading for St. Paul's words are Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH was manifested by Flesh Mr. Milbourn will not say that the Authors of the Old Translations the Latin Syriac and Armenian were Unitarians be sure St. Jerom Author of the Latin was a bigotted Trinitarian yet they and he read with the Nicene Council WHICH was manifested by Flesh not GOD was manifested in Flesh I appeal to any Man of ordinary sense whether he can think those Translators and Fathers would have corrupted the Bible in favour and to the advantage of their Adversaries the Unitarians by saying not GOD but WHICH was manifested by Flesh
on the Gospel it self I know not Sir what stronger or clearer Proofs any Man can require that this Text was anciently read by WHICH which Mystery of Godliness was manifested by Flesh i. e. by Man as the Law had been by Angels For you see we have for this reading first all the ancient Translations the Latin Armenian and Syriac then the Council of Nice so much extolled and reverenced by our Opposers besides these the Testimony of Trinitarian Historians Men of Learning and Dignity and contemporary to the Corruption of this Text also a vast number of the best and oldest Copies of the Original Greek and the Judgment of the ablest Criticks upon them If all this does not amount to a Demonstration on our side in the Judgment of indifferent Persons yet there is no Man of common Prudence and Caution but will allow that the reading for which our Adversaries contend GOD was manifested in Flesh is too uncertain doubtful and precarious to build on it as the Trinitarians do an Article of Faith or to innovate in the Doctrine of the Unity of God dictated to us by Natural Light and the principal Design of both the Testaments 2. But supposing now this Point were yielded to them that we are to read here GOD was manifested in or by Flesh it will nothing avail the Trinitarian Cause For by GOD here we may understand as in divers other Texts the Trinitarians themselves do not the Person but the Will and Mind of God this was manifested to us by Flesh that is by Men by Jesus Christ and his Apostles 'T is true our Translators render the words by was manifested IN Flesh but they will not deny that they might have been rendred Manifested BY Flesh for themselves so interpret the Greek Particle in the very next Clause of this Verse was justified IN the Spirit that is say They was Justified or Proved by the Spirit by Miracles done by the Spirit of God That the word God may be sometimes interpreted not of the Person but of the Will or Mind of God is not denied by the Trinitarian Interpreters nay themselves as I said before so interpret Thus for Example when St. Paul saith Gal. 1.10 Do I now perswade Men or God Our Opposers interpret it thus Do I seek to perswade Human Inventions the Devices and Figments of Men or the very Will and Commands of God The like on divers other Texts Therefore Sir if Mr. Milb has prevailed with you to read this first Clause by God was manifested you may for all that abide in your Sentiment about the Unity of God and interpret to him the whole Verse after this manner Without Controversy Great and Glorious is the Mystery of Godliness even the Gospel of the Blessed Jesus for 't is no less or other than the Will and Nature of God manifested to us by the Agreeable and sutable Ministry of Men of Flesh and Blood like to our selves not as the Law was by the Amazing and Terrible appearance of Flaming Ministers even the Spirits and Angels of Heaven This Will of God or this Revelation of his Nature and Will has been justified i. e. proved by the Spirit by Miracles done by the Spirit Energy or Power of God it has been seen and admired by Angels who desire to look more accurately into this New Revelation which in part supersedes the Revelation of the Divine Will that was delivered by them it has been Preached to the Gentiles and Believed on in the World Did I say it has been Believed on it has not been Barely Believed but received generally speaking with great Honour and Glory From P. 82. where our Author takes leave of this famous Text to P. 309. He mortifies his Reader with a long Impertinence concerning the Reasonableness and Vsefulness of Mysteries in Religion and that 't was Necessary the Messias should be the Son of God We are not concerned in the Truth or Falshood of either of these Affirmations of our Author be it as He says thô his Allegations or any He can bring prove neither of them What are they to his Purpose If Mysteries are indeed so useful in Religion as he contends they are it will not follow from thence that we must admit as parts of our Religion all the Mysteries that fanciful or ignorant Men have devised much less that we are obliged to let all the Nonsense and Contradictions that Any may seek to impose on our Faith pass for Holy and Divine Mysteries That 't was Necessary that the Messias should be the Son of God I doubt very much and I think our Author has offer'd nothing in proof of it that is Considerable or Material but that de Facto it was so that our Lord Christ was indeed the Son of God the Socinians have always Granted and Affirmed because he was begotten by the Divine Power on a pure Virgin Therefore overpassing so much useless Scrible of this Author I come to his second Particular as He calls it at P. 309. That the Blessed Jesus was so the Son of God as to be God equal with his Father or was really and truly God as well as real Man CHAP. II. THAT our Lord Jesus Christ was true God Equal with his Father our Author undertakes to prove 1. From Texts of the Old Testament 2. From Texts of the New Testament 3. By the Actions and Miracles done by the said our Lord Jesus 4. From the Consent of the Primitive Church 5. From the Common and as he saith on every hand Approved practice of worshipping and praying to him His Proofs from the Old Testament accurately examined He alledges First the History of the Three Angels who at Gen. 18. appeared to Abraham One of these Angels is called Jehovah both by Abraham and by the Historian but the Name Jehovah which our Translators render LORD is saith our Author communicable only to God and that this Angel was indeed God appears fâ—rther by Abraham's calling him at V. 18. the Judg of the whole Earth He saith hereupon that by this History we gain the Certainty that our Saviour had a Being before he was born of the Virgin and that the Title Power and Acknowledgments belonging to the True God are given to Christ But all this while Mr. Milb you forget the one thing Necessary even to prove to us that this Angel or this Jehovah is the same Person that afterwards in Gospel-times is called the Lord Jesus When you evince that your Allegation of this History will indeed be a Proof of the Pre-existence of our Saviour till then we remain in that seemingly rational Belief that his Mother was Older than He. But neither can we grant to you that this Angel was indeed God because the Name Jehovah is given to him for that Name is bestowed in Holy Scripture on Angels when they are appointed to represent the Person of God as we shall presently see is confessed by some of the principal Critics of the Trinitarians themselves and
would apprehend that he spoke of a new Creation and I know not what World of the Messias I confess the Objection is weighty but it may be reasonably answered that the New Creation the Spiritual World and the World of the Messias was so universally known to the Jews and also to the Christians of those Times who were all converted by Jewish Preachers that St. John reasonably expected to be readily understood by them Especially considering that but one God and one only Creator was then so well known to be the Doctrine of Christianity and of Judaism that no one who was at all acquainted with those Religions would understand a Writer of either of those Perswasions of any other Creation or World but the World of the Messias and the new Creation when he attributed a Creation or World to any Person but God In a word St. John supposed that he spoke safely and intelligibly because writing his Gospel for the use of Jews and Christians who knew the Doctrines of the Jewish Church concerning the Messias such must needs perfectly understand of what World he spake when he should say the World was made by the WORD The short is either St. John speaks here of the old Creation and the visible World and then we ought to render his words All things were made for him the World was made for him which is an Allusion to a known saying of the Jews that the World was made for the Messias namely to subject it in the fulness of Time to the Messias and his Law 〈◊〉 great and certain Truth Or he speaks of the new Creation and the World which all Men expected the Messias should make and if so we understand him as saying All things were made by him and the World was made by him The rest is easy The WORD was made Flesh and dwelt among us And He that cometh after me is preferred before me for he was before me It will not be denied Sir by any of our Opposers that instead of The Word was made Flesh that is say they was made Man we may render the Greek by the Word WAS Flesh that is to say was Man or a Man The Greek Word which to serve the present turn they render here by was made is by themselves in this very Chapter rendred WAS Ver. 6. There WAS a Man sent from God whose Name was John 'T is plain enough why our Opposers would take no notice that St. John's words might be rendred the Word WAS Flesh or was a Man and dwelt among us for this Translation would have turned the whole Context against them It would have been perceived by All that when the Word is before called a God the meaning must be he is a God as he represented the true God and because like Moses who on the same Account is called a God at Exod. 7.1 he is the Ambassador and Messenger of God the bringer of the Commands and Word of God Men would have discerned too that they must not interpret St. John as saying that the World the Visible World and All things were made by the WORD but only for the WORD Nay this Translation the WORD was a Man would have contradicted them Directly and Expresly for though they say Jesus Christ was a Man yet the WORD to which He was personally united was God and not Man according to them But John Baptist has testified of the WORD He is preferred before me for He was before me Here again the Translators have favoured themselves by rendring the Greek words WAS before me they might have been rendred IS before me But allowing their Translation Was before me Erasmus Grotius Beza Maldonat and other Crities observe that the words are to be understood of a priority of Dignity not a priority of Time so as to make this Sense He is preferred before me thô in regard of Time I am before Him because He was indeed before me in Excellence of Merit and Dignity of Person and Office It is a very common thing with our Opposers to pretend that the Socinians cannot paraphrase this beginning of St. John's Gospel without making such an harsh sense as is next to ridiculous therefore let us put all that has been said into one view in this following Paraphrase and do you Sir and all Men judg whether it be Harsh or Uncouth In the beginning of the Gospel-State was the Messiah whom the Jews have used to call the WORD and we also may so call him because He is the Great Messenger and Preacher of the Gospel-Word This WORD was assumed into Heaven and was there with God to be instructed in all that he was to say and do in the execution of the Office of the Messiah He was with the God and He himself was a God being to represent the Person of God as his Ambassador and to deliver his Commands and Word to Men On which account very Many and particularly Moses are called Gods in Holy Scripture The Messias was decreed before the World was nay the World was at first made with intention to subject it in the fulness of Time to the Messias and his Law So that the World and all things may be said to have been made for him and that without respect or regard had to him nothing was made that was made Yet as Great a Person as the Messias is this is always to be remembred that He was Flesh or Man Man like to us and that dwelt among us I will say no more of him at this time but this that John the Baptist whom all Men took to be a Prophet bore this Testimony of him That thô the WORD came after him in respect of Time yet the WORD was indeed before him in the Excellence of his Person the Dignity of his Office and the Miraculous Power over Diseases and Devils bestowed on him What is there Sir in all this Paraphrase that is not intelligible and easy And for its Agreement with the Greek Text of St. John we prove it by Rules of Criticism not only not deniable by our Opposers but advanced and urged by themselves It all depends upon these two Observations First Sometimes such as are meer Men are on the account of their Deputation and Mission from God honoured with the Name of God which we prove by the Example of Moses the Lawgiver of the Old Testament as the Lord Christ is of the New and from the Mouth of our Saviour himself at Joh. 10.35 Secondly That the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendred by the English words For and Was which we show by all the Greek Lexicons and by their own Translations of other Texts of Seripture Our Opposers alledg this Context as the principal Evidence they have to produce that there is more than one Divine Person and more than one who is Creator of the World We answer we are taught in the First and Fourth Commandments that there is but
can and doth by a Power constantly vested in him as Socinus supposes relieve our Wants to what purpose is he appointed to be our Advocate and Intercessor with God How unlike and utterly inconsistent are these two Sayings this of Socinus We may and ought to pray to the Lord Christ as He who can himself help us and this contrary saying of the Apostle He Christ it able to save to the uttermost All that come unto God by him i. e. that pray to God calling on his Name or for his sake seeing He ever liveth to make Intercession for them What can be more evident than that here Christ's saving us from the Evils which we either fear or labour under is ascribed not to his own Inherent Power but to the Power of his Intercession or Mediation with God Which Mediation is not to be understood of a Verbal or Personal Mediation proceeding from a particular knowledg of our Wants or Prayers but of a general Mediation for All by his Merits that is by the perfect Obedience and most acceptable Services that he has performed to God The truth is Socinus and the Socinians properly so called do not own the Mediatory Office of Christ But they make him to be a Mediator not that He intercedes for us but because He is Medius inter Deum Homines between God and Men being vested with a Power from God to bestow on the Faithful all necessary and convenient Things in a word He is not an Intercessor for Us but a King to protect and help us Thus Volkelius as he has been published perhaps corrected by Crellius saith Etiam sâ—â—nunc c. i. e. Although Christ did now pray for us which yet we do not grant it will not follow that He himself may not be prayed unto for nothing hinders but that he who prays to another may also be prayed to De verâ Relig. Lib. 5. c. 30. p. 618. For my own part I do not affirm any thing upon this Question but I have mentioned these Arguments and Replies that it may appear that if our present Opposer Mr. Milb does indeed say true that Person must needs be God who may be prayed unto yet it will not follow therefore the Lord Christ is God because it cannot be demonstratively proved that there is any real Scripture-ground for praying unto him But he will still urge that at least those Unitarians who contend for the Invocation of the Lord Christ are within danger and reach of his Objection even this that they must ascribe to Christ an Omniscience Omnipotence and Omnipresence which are the very Attributes the essential Attributes of the One true God I do not think this is a necessary Consequence they do not make another God by their praying to the Lord Christ it doth not follow that He is Omnipresent Omniscient and Omnipotent because 't is supposed and held that He may be prayed unto and also can supply all our Wants First For Omniscience 'T is the General Opinion of all Sects and Parties of Christians that the glorified Saints have more than a Prophetick Knowledg by what which the Schools have called the Beatifick Vision or as the Apostle speaks by seeing God as he is The Benefit of the Beatifick Vision shall be to Persons in proportion to their Labour of Duty and Love which they have showed to the Service of God Therefore our Lord Christ in his present Glorified State may have such a perfect sight of God as to see in him the Desires and Prayers the Distresses Defects and Perfections of such as call upon God in his Name The Fathers and Schools do suppose that the Saints in Heaven know very many things both past and to come by the Beatifick Vision and that the Conversation in Heaven is not by Speech or Words but by Intuition or Vision or some the like way 'T is not therefore irrational or bordering on Idolatry or on Polytheism if we suppose that by the same Beatifick Vision our Prayers are known to the Lord Christ especially considering that He is the Appointed Mediator for us Next for Omnipotence and Omnipresence the Lord Christ may be able to succours us in Wants both Temporal and Spiritual without our supposing either that He is Omnipresent or Omnipotent For the Omnipotence of God can confer even on things Insensible a miraculous Power nay such a Power as can effect Miracles at the greatest distance Thus the Bones of the Prophet had Power to restore a dead Man to Life The Brazen Serpent healed such as did but look toward it from a distant Place But if such Virtue as this could be given to inanimate Things the Divine Wisdom may have Reasons and the Divine Omnipotence has an Ability to enable the Lord Christ to do Miracles as far as from Heaven to Earth and such Miracles too as reach the Minds as well as the Bodies of Men. We know not the Philosophy or the Manner of the thing but as 't is undeniable not impossible so 't is an Hypothesis more rational and infinitely more safe and pious than to multiply Gods or what is the same thing only in other words Divine Persons as our Trinitarian Opposers do I shall only add farther upon this Subject of the Invocation of Christ that whereas 't is a Question that has very much divided the Unitarians Whether the Lord Christ may be prayed unto There is no cause why the should not bear with one another notwithstanding their dissent about this Question For we have seen that He may be the Object of Prayer without making him God or a Person of God and without ascribing to him the Properties of the Divine Nature Omnipresence Omniscience and Omnipotence Nor on the other hand do such as refuse to pray to any but God dishonour the Lord Christ even tho it be supposed that He may be prayed to because in refusing to pray to him they only refuse what they suppose that He himself hath forbidden which maketh their Error if it be an Error to be pure and meer Error not Malice not Neglect or Contempt which are the only things that are punishable by a just Judg whether such Judg be God or a Man Which one thing were it but considered as I think 't is consest by such as are Legislators or Judges the Account they must give at last to God would be much more comfortable and tolerable for them than now it is like to be Of the Adoration or Worship of Christ That our Lord Christ is to be worshipped was never made a Question by the Unitarians we doubt not that the Angels of Heaven do worship him the Question is concerning the kind or sort of Worship Trinitarians say He is to be worshipped as God we say He is to be worshipp'd as one that I may use the Apostle's words whom God hath exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour or as another Apostle speaks as one whom God hath given to be Head over all things to the